On Sa, 2019-02-02 at 01:20 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote: > So, how do we identify those who are currently the most contributory? > Commits mostly, though we can't ignore other qualities. In a 2003 > paper[1], Scacchi (UC Irvine) defined a F/OSS meritocracy pyramid in > which those at the top had the highest *perceived* authority. Kaats > (Utrecht University) et. al. in 2014 [2] built on Scacchi's research > saying:
The issue with such a study is that typically the motivation for doing commits or changing lines of code changes is to improve the code base, not to gain power. By giving power based on such a metric you change the motivation for doing changes. And also mind: You don't need many people doing this to have an impact. This can also have different effect: Image we say "top 13 comitters" gain voting power. Now a few days before the evaluation point somebody commits some "unimportant" (subjectively) changes ad therefore gains voting seat 13. Then the person on rank 14 will be unhappy that there (subjectively) important changes are less valuable. I think there is a value in kicking people with hardly any contribution (like myself these days) out to avoid "old friendships" to play a role (over the last few years I had some cases where more active people pointed me to RFCs ... which I interpreted as a question for my opinion, not for a vote, but who knows) In general I prefer consensus over voting, as voting produces "losers" and voting was introduced when we didn't have a decision process in multiple heated debates. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 is a relevant RFC for consensus. johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
